Is the best move to let your time run out?

Consider this position, white to move.  Obviously, the only legal move is h7, but then follows Nf7 mate.  So, shouldn't white just not move at all, and let the clock run out?  Wouldn't chess.com then call it a draw because black doesn't have "mating material" ?

I haven't been able to figure out how to test it.  When I load it and say "finish vs computer", I can't find a way to add a clock.

If you browse a few weeks back you will find endless discussions on this subject. Again if you browse a few months back, etcetera. But the way you should play chess is by the FIDE rules and not by the quirkiness of a particular site, organization or tournament rule.

FIDE rules will not give you an unfair advantage when you do something funny. Just play chess.

We are on chess.com. Their rules are the default to analyse, that's obvious. The fact that this issue has been known for year but nothing is done about it is exactly why such chats should exist. It's an issue, maybe if we talk about it enough chess.com will finally fix their silly rules.

 And many players like me don't know the FIDE's rules !

That's the sign of our times. People have opinions about any- and everything and then it turns out they don't know the rules, they don't know the laws, they don't know the science. And it's not that hard to find it out - try googeling.

wouldn't you just lose if you let time run out? or are you going to move at the last second and hope for your opponent not being able to react on time as they had been doing something else because you refuse to move for 20 mins? 

No it won't because it can't which has also been extensively explained in those threads. But that is not the point. People are here to play chess, not to cheat. Why look for ways to cheat when you can also play decent chess? The dividing line is not what has been automated in systems and machines but what humans subscribed to in the places where they gather and define their rules of engagement. Chess.com does not force you to cheat - it's merely incapable of stopping you. Do the right thing and stop yourself!

Chess.com could stop you. Non broken rules exist they could just apply them. If you make a ruleset that rewards poor sportsmanship you are directly rewarding poor sportsmanship.

Chess.com can't evaluate dead positions properly and I do not know of any site that does. In fact humans can't do it perfectly either but they make a good job of it most of the time. Practically humans can resolve it by negotiation. One side claims the remaining position can lead to mate the other side denies it. The latter side then conceeds on the condition the other side produces a mate by playing both sides. It is not full proof because when the player is really stupid or the position is extremely intricate (like some composed dead positions) then the available mate won't be found. Stated simply: that you don't find one is no proof that there ain't one.

Yes we can prove that positions can't lead to mate with best vs worst play. We have tablebases for less than 7 pieces, we literally know every possible outcome.

As for positions with more than 7 pieces, Either the reason a draw is certain is patently obvious or a winning line if easily findable.

Not that perfection is needed to improve the chess.com system. I don't mind the fact that one could lose a position on time that one cannot lose through play. The issue is that one can get a better result by timing out. That should never exist, their it's just a question of improving the analysis so that if a loss is possible when you lsoe on time you're given a draw.

Which is always true with knight vs pawn endgames (bishop promotions then go stuck in a corner).

Tablebases don't matter becaus they are based on competitive play. The FIDE-rules are about help play and helpmate. Amazingly there are no full proof algorithms yet that cover the question of "whether mate is possible" though it should be easy to cover 99.99% of the cases. It's best when FIDE itself approves of an acceptable - though imperfect - algorithm which could then be implemented on all chess systems.

Note that theoretically chess interfaces ought to make dead position evaluations on every move as the game ends in the very second such a position occurs. Interfaces may and should interfere with the players; their wishes and opnions don't matter: "dead" = "game over". Martin Stahl observed that the outcome will be the same at any later moment in the game (a dead draw always remain a dead draw) so a lazy interface will delay the analysis until some form of termination takes place. Even resigning is impossible after a dead position - the game is already over.

No, I'm talking about letting my clock run completely out.  Normally that means I lose, but if the opponent has "insufficient mating material", it's a draw.  A lone knight is (I believe) considered insufficient mating material by Chess.com.

It would be very difficult to write a computer program to "correctly" manage every strange endgame case.  I find the N vs P case interesting, because either rules interpretation is imperfect.  This is because in virtually every case of N vs P, if the player with P runs out of time, it IS possible to construct a checkmate with what it left (it generally requires underpromotion and then a lot of silly moves).  So, one question could be, what would be sillier... my case in my original post, which should obviously be a win but is declared a draw, or a typical case which should be a draw but is declared a win for the N?

That's the core of the issue. In order to avoid having to take into account the strength of the players, FIDE decided for the latter in all cases - except those where mate is absolutely impossible. Chess.com chose differently but that's just chess.com

Exactly.  In this case (N vs P), I actually think that Chess.com's approach makes more sense.  The degenerate example in my original post is exceedingly rare (I even wonder if it has ever even happened).  The common cases in my opinion should be draws, not wins for the N, because knowing it will be a win means that the player with the N should keep playing for 50 more moves to try and win on time, which is ugly.

I actually had a game like this... both of us thought it was FIDE rules, so my opponent (with the N) kept playing to try and run out my clock.  I thought I had to make the 50 moves in the 20 seconds that I had.  I did (meaning I reached 50 moves and got the draw), but I learned later that since it was chess.com I didn't have to do that.  If chess.com used FIDE rules in this case, this situation would happen a lot.

Chess players do not think in terms of material sufficiency but in potentials of positions. A player who carefully calculated arriving in the endgame of post #1 would feel robbed when his inevitable victory is blocked by an opponent refusing to move. You would be right if endgame positions would result from throwing dice - where the probability of a lonely knight winning is tiny - but why punish a player who got there through skillful chess play? FIDE reasoned it's your own fault to let your time expire which would ordinarily lose you the game. But it's willing  to make an exception for the extreme situation of losing on the clock while you could not have possibly lost on the board. Can't find that unreasonable. Before the dead rule there was nothing to help you out; you simply lost.

If you're in a position where winning is possible however unlikely it should be given as a win on time. This already happens with single pawn vs all the material you want situations. No 10 queens have low odds of losing to a single pawn but if the player times out he times out.

Same with knight vs pawn situations.

if you are letting the clock run out and you move at the last second, you are not affecting your opponent's time, just your own. in the case the op presented, chess.com would call it a draw, rather than a loss for the player wasting the time, because the other player does not have sufficient material to win.